VSSR Cases: Grandfather Clause (Supreme Court)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Supreme Court)

VSSR: Grandfather Clause

Select the case name to read the decision on the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site. For other issues, see our topic index to Ohio workers’ compensation decisions.

Arce, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/2/05)

If machine is an installation or construction it is governed by the safety code in effect when it was put in service, rather than the safety code in effect at the time of injury; the Commission properly found that a machine was an installation or construction where it was of large size and weight, lacked mobility, and was set up for use in a specific location.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Colliver, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/17/99)

Grandfather clause provision of safety code applied only to installations or constructions. Therefore, the grandfather clause did not apply to a motor vehicle. However, Court found that evidence supported denial of VSSR claim even when the applicable code provision was applied because there was no evidence that removal of an emergency brake caused the accident and the Commission could determine that someone testing a vehicle was not an operator of the vehicle.

Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Justice Lundberg Stratton

McVay, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/22/99)

Grandfather clause provision of safety code applied only to installations or constructions. Therefore, the grandfather clause did not apply to a motor vehicle and the Commission was required to consider whether there was a safety code violation.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam